The IRS has issued companion Private Letter Rulings (Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200524016 & Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200524017), holding that a County’s collectively bargained 457(b) plan will not meet the requirements of section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code if the plan provides benefits to same-gender domestic partners. (Source: TaxProf Blog.) According to the the facts of the rulings, the law of the State in which the County resided provided that registered domestic partners had the same rights, protections and benefits and were subject to the obligations and duties “under law” as granted to and imposed on spouses. However, the State law also apparently provided that such law was not to be interpreted to “amend, or modify federal law or the benefits, protections and responsibilities provided by federal law.” The IRS makes the following statement in the Rulings:
Rev. Rul. 58-66, 1958-1 C.B. 60, provides that the marital status of individuals as determined under state law is recognized in the administration of tax laws. However, Section 3 of the “Defense of Marriage Act”, P.L. 104-199 (September 21, 1996), provides that, “in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus or agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” . . .A registered domestic partner, a former registered domestic partner, or a surviving registered domestic partner as defined in State X Act is not a spouse, a former spouse or a surviving spouse for purposes of section 457. Accordingly, in the event that the Spouse Provisions are not interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Defense of Marriage Act, the operation of Plan A will not be in compliance with section 457(b).
Read more about DOMA and the issue of marriage as it relates to benefits in previous posts here.
UPDATE: See also this article here from Littler Mendelson. The article provides a good summary of recent state law developments pertaining to same-gender marriage.